Interleaf wrote:GM has said that the Bolt motor is high-torque, low speed, offering a quieter ride. So the gearing is lower. The bolt may be 200 HP vs. Leaf's 147, but it is torque x reduction-ratio that counts in acceleration. The Leaf has a higher reduction ration and can probably beat the Bolt in a drag race.

Where on Earth are you getting this info? GM marketing-speak isn't technical specs. If the Leaf is faster in top speed, then assuming similar motor designs, it would have less power off the line, because it would have "high" gearing (lower numerical reduction ratio) as opposed to the Bolt's "low" gearing, which was apparently designed specifically to win drag races with other EVs. A heavier Leaf, with less HP and about the same torque as the Bolt, plus a final drive ratio designed for about the same 94MPH top speed as the current Leaf, isn't going to beat the Bolt in the quarter mile, or to 60. It will eventually outrun the Bolt, again assuming all of the above is true.

evnow wrote:I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Look at the entire distribution of miles travelled - not just average. People don't buy a vehicle for their "average" needs. They buy to fulfill 90%+ of their needs - not 50% of their needs.

ps : my commute is 10 to 20 miles roundtrip.

Your statement is an opinion based on your needs. In my experience, people buy a vehicle based on 100% of their needs. The reality is licensing and insurance changes have made it difficult to do what I used to do and that is have several cars designated for specific uses. I now am required to pay full price on every vehicle and that price is several fold higher than it used to be.

Actually my statement is my opinion based on what I think will move most people.

100% doesn't happen - people still fly or rent trucks to move. That's why I used 90% figure (could be 95%+ for some).

I also have co-workers who are perfectly happy with the 84 mile Leaf - and they use it just to commute or errands. If they have to travel more than 50 miles, they take the other car. These are people who were happy to have a car that met 75% of their needs.

evnow wrote:I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Look at the entire distribution of miles travelled - not just average. People don't buy a vehicle for their "average" needs. They buy to fulfill 90%+ of their needs - not 50% of their needs.

ps : my commute is 10 to 20 miles roundtrip.

Your statement is an opinion based on your needs. In my experience, people buy a vehicle based on 100% of their needs. The reality is licensing and insurance changes have made it difficult to do what I used to do and that is have several cars designated for specific uses. I now am required to pay full price on every vehicle and that price is several fold higher than it used to be.

Actually my statement is my opinion based on what I think will move most people.

100% doesn't happen - people still fly or rent trucks to move. That's why I used 90% figure (could be 95%+ for some).

I also have co-workers who are perfectly happy with the 84 mile Leaf - and they use it just to commute or errands. If they have to travel more than 50 miles, they take the other car. These are people who were happy to have a car that met 75% of their needs.

oh well, you are talking about EVers looking at another EV. I was talking about gassers considering EVs. Yeah, as "we" know, EVs are very useful but gassers see the range as limited (primarily by preconceived notions)

I have people discounting an EV because of a trip they make a few times a year (a relative that only one actually wants to visit no less!)

OrientExpress wrote:We are in agreement that people buy to fulfill 90% of their needs and that for 95% of the population cars like the LEAF do just that. The sticking point is confusing perceived needs vs. actual needs.

Are you talking about Leaf 2 or current Leaf ? Definitely current Leaf doesn't meet the 90% of the needs of 95% of population. I was anyway talking about 90% needs of 75% of population. I don't know whether Leaf 2 meets that.

Lets take 160 mile EPA range. That would mean 140+ miles of freeway. May be 100+ on freeway in winter. This is actually very good for me - and meet 90%+ of my needs. But I'm probably an outlier, we haven't travelled much lately because of small kids (set to change as they grow) and that Seattle metro travel is in general shorter than other metros. This would probably not meet 90% needs of my friends who are in larger, colder places like Chicago, for eg.

The Tesla Model 3 faces a similar issue. Despite its record setting pre-order interest, it is even more off balance both for Tesla and those that have expressed an interest in obtaining the car based on the illusion of it being a $35K vehicle. Tesla admits the real entry point is more like $45K, and that is the ASP that the majority of Model 3s will be sold at. Technically and stylistically the Model 3 is a nice effort, but it is off balance in that it is beyond the means of a good chunk of those that have put down reservations.

Entry point is $45k ? That makes no sense - and Tesla doesn't admit to anything like that. Just their expected ASP (because the longer range, AWD and P versions cost more). I expect the mode to be a $40k Model 3.

So with that in mind, I expect that as soon as they can offer a 230+ mile version that fits in their value space and they can make money doing it, they will.

Leaf isn't making a 60 kWh Leaf because they don't have the battery tech yet. Otherwise they would have put one out - just to save the face.

DaveinOlyWA wrote:oh well, you are talking about EVers looking at another EV. I was talking about gassers considering EVs. Yeah, as "we" know, EVs are very useful but gassers see the range as limited (primarily by preconceived notions)

I have people discounting an EV because of a trip they make a few times a year (a relative that only one actually wants to visit no less!)

Just to restate - all I was commenting on was to not just look at the average miles driven, but look at distribution of miles driven per day, since people don't buy for the "average" need but something that covers a high % of the need.

For eg. one of my co-workers said he bought a hybrid instead of an EV - because he goes to BC once every 2 weeks (in terms of # of trips, that is less than 10%). Nobody wants the hassle of renting cars every other week. Another one couldn't buy an EV because she goes camping quite often (may be once or twice a month).

If someone takes one or two long trips a year, then renting would make sense. Cars need to satisfy trips taken monthly (even though purely as a % of the trips, they are small).

Hard to gauge "90%" of ones needs.. I could get by with some inconvenience with my 10bar Leaf (or for that matter the gen1 EV1) but there are also times when I need MUCH more range for a 300-500mile trip (SoCal to Vegas, SF, Tahoe) where a 60 mile (or 84 mile) car would just be way too much hassle. While I might only spend 5% of my time on trips like this, those miles can add up fast. Most days I don't burn any gasoline in my Gen2 Volt but thanks to those sporadic longer trips my lifetime mpg is only about 100. Last July when I bought the Volt I had considered waiting for Bolt, NL2 or T3.. Even considered the 30kWh NL1. But honestly when it takes me 9 hours to get from OC to North Tahoe, even taking two 30-40min QC stops along the way just doesn't sound very palatable.

I'm not at all trying to say that a 160, 220 or 238 mile EV shouldn't sell much better than the sub 90 mile cars. I think they will reach a much larger audience.. But the customer is always going to be thinking "what can't I do with this" rather than "what do I need."

cwerdna wrote:Because the engine is so wimpy and underpowered, unless you "code" it, you would NOT want to take it up uphill grades at highway or even leisurely speeds.

If the engine could be turned on at 80% SoC (50% is not good enough), then 25 kW is far more than plenty to go uphilll at highway speeds. The problem is not the i3. The problem is that enviro-fascist socialist in CARB, who could never get a job in the private sector due to incompetence, who is dictating Rex SoC at 5%.

Well, yeah, because you're depending on a big buffer in the battery. 25 kW is about 33.5 hp. It's obvious that by itself is woefully insufficient for highway speeds up steep grades.

As for blaming CARB, well, there are plenty of green CA HOV sticker PHEVs that don't have this problem, have a much more powerful ICE and have modes like mountain mode.

I don't know the full story as to to what's the deal as some of them are wrong. One explanation I recently heard on https://www.facebook.com/groups/BMWi3/ (I can't find the comment) was that BMW worked w/CARB in creating this BEVx classification in order to get more credits which yielded these limits. I don't know if that's true or not and also don't understand why non-CA and non-CARB US vehicles are also equally crippled.

Yes, it's true and it was widely discussed at the time here. The blame doesn't lie with CARB, it's with BMW for choosing the route they did solely to maximize their credits. There simply wouldn't be a BEVx category if they hadn't asked CARB to create it, although as it turns out they were given green rather than white stickers. Here's some history:

California’s new ZEV rule introduces the BEVx; ARB staff expects these vehicles to play a longer-term role than plug-in hybrids

. . . Under the ACC, ARB will award BEVx credits on the same basis as BEVs—i.e., on zero-emission miles (the simplified ZEV credit scheme under the ACC is a linear one based on those zero-emission miles). BEVx vehicles can provide up to 50% of the pure ZEV requirement for manufacturers, and so they may emerge as a significant vehicle type.

In the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) published prior to the Board meeting, ARB staff noted that “some manufacturers” proposed this new class of advanced vehicles for separate treatment as part of the ZEV program. (During the public hearing on the ACC rule package, comments from ARB staff and the Board indicated that BMW was particularly interested in this classification.)

The basic rationale, according to ARB staff, is that such a vehicle has the potential to expand the BEV market beyond current market estimates by giving interested customers an extra measure of confidence about range, and if successful, would add substantial zero-emission vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to the overall California fleet. . . .

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

evnow wrote:If someone takes one or two long trips a year, then renting would make sense. Cars need to satisfy trips taken monthly (even though purely as a % of the trips, they are small).

I agree with that strategy. We're taking a 1K+ mile trip in September and I've reserved a rental car. It's clearly not a trip our LEAF could do and it's less costly (using the 50 cent / mile basis) as well as no wear and tear on our Volt.

Originally our LEAF satisfied 95% of our driving needs. However now, with its battery degradation, it satisfies maybe 70% - 75% of our needs. Its utility will continue to decrease until I have the battery replaced. I of course knew that would happen with the battery but I was thinking by now there would be a vast fast charging network that would make the reduced range of our older LEAF a non issue for say 60 -70 mile trips. But that didn't happen. So a new 150 or 200 mile EV would mean that after 5 or so years it should still have sufficient range for 95% of our needs. That's clearly a major benefit for me.

OrientExpress wrote:We are in agreement that people buy to fulfill 90% of their needs and that for 95% of the population cars like the LEAF do just that. The sticking point is confusing perceived needs vs. actual needs.

Are you talking about Leaf 2 or current Leaf ? Definitely current Leaf doesn't meet the 90% of the needs of 95% of population. I was anyway talking about 90% needs of 75% of population. I don't know whether Leaf 2 meets that.

Lets take 160 mile EPA range. That would mean 140+ miles of freeway. May be 100+ on freeway in winter. This is actually very good for me - and meet 90%+ of my needs. But I'm probably an outlier, we haven't travelled much lately because of small kids (set to change as they grow) and that Seattle metro travel is in general shorter than other metros. This would probably not meet 90% needs of my friends who are in larger, colder places like Chicago, for eg.

The Tesla Model 3 faces a similar issue. Despite its record setting pre-order interest, it is even more off balance both for Tesla and those that have expressed an interest in obtaining the car based on the illusion of it being a $35K vehicle. Tesla admits the real entry point is more like $45K, and that is the ASP that the majority of Model 3s will be sold at. Technically and stylistically the Model 3 is a nice effort, but it is off balance in that it is beyond the means of a good chunk of those that have put down reservations.

Entry point is $45k ? That makes no sense - and Tesla doesn't admit to anything like that. Just their expected ASP (because the longer range, AWD and P versions cost more). I expect the mode to be a $40k Model 3.

So with that in mind, I expect that as soon as they can offer a 230+ mile version that fits in their value space and they can make money doing it, they will.

Leaf isn't making a 60 kWh Leaf because they don't have the battery tech yet. Otherwise they would have put one out - just to save the face.

I read on the Tesla forum from a salesman and had a tesla sales person tell me directly that they are "currently" pricing out at about $59k. Of course, part of that is because the first models are long range options only and come default with premium. So on top of that the first buyers (employees of tesla) are throwing on some enhanced auto pilot, wheel, color options.

$35k is still a real number, and you will still be able to buy a tesla at that. It will deliver a plethora of power, 220 mile range, and since it comes with "self drive hardware", the option for future autonomy. Or, right off the bat, $5k can be spent for enhanced auto pilot (hands free driving on the highway, essentially).

As for the conjecture above about the Leaf that it may still ship with a 30 kwh battery, I find that hard to believe, but if so you can stick a cork in it. That sort of range can't be taken seriously in a new generation of electric vehicle from a major manufacturer, IMO.

EatsShootsandLeafs wrote:...As for the conjecture above about the Leaf that it may still ship with a 30 kwh battery, I find that hard to believe, but if so you can stick a cork in it. That sort of range can't be taken seriously in a new generation of electric vehicle from a major manufacturer, IMO.

I expect that if Nissan does introduce the Gen two with two pack options, one with ~33 kWh total/~30 kWh available capacity, and the other with~44 kWh total/~40 kWh available capacity, many (and perhaps most) buyers will choose the less expensive, more efficient, lighter and more nimble handling version, equipped with the smaller pack.